- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:51:18 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17082 Yang Sun <eric.sun@huawei.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eric.sun@huawei.com --- Comment #6 from Yang Sun <eric.sun@huawei.com> 2012-06-18 05:51:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > This question has come up several times when I talk to people about the Media > Source Extensions so I think it deserves some discussion. > > Should the Media Source methods & attributes be in a separate object instead of > added to the HTMLMediaElement? I support it for clear architecture and inferface reason, but I have some concerns that we have to explicitly to contruct mediasource for each time usage. > > > Here are a few other follow up questions to spark discussion: > 1. What do we gain by moving this into a separate object? We gain OOP's benefit, and make HTMLMediaElement clean, > 2. If they are placed in a separate object, can the object be associated with > multiple tags? Yes it can be technological:MediaSource->MediaStream->Video/audio. but I do not think it make too much sense in real world, because, Media Source mainly used by online video SP, AD SP etc, so,the most frequent scenario is one MediaSouce one Video, MediaStream can be constructed from getUserMedia(). > 3. Will this prevent declarative syntax to enable Media Source and reuse of the > <source> fallback mechanism? Do you mean we may selectively create event handler for MediaSource when using a seperate object? And I think MediaSource way has no way to prepare alternative track using <source>, right? -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 05:51:21 UTC